In Mesoamerica, conquest, predatory or segmentary expansion, and migration frequently brought together heterogeneous social, cultural, and linguistic populations under a single ruler. In the Aztec ...
More

In Mesoamerica, conquest, predatory or segmentary expansion, and migration frequently brought together heterogeneous social, cultural, and linguistic populations under a single ruler. In the Aztec (Mexica) empire, ethnic distinctions were made, but little was made of them. Far from being a proselytizing, normatively mobilizing, moralistic polity, the Aztecs, like other patrimonial societies in Mesoamerica and elsewhere, were principally interested in extraction: ‘little more than a band of pirates’, Eric Wolf called them. Though Aztec rulers were interested in the formation of an identifiably Mexica ruling class, there was no policy of cultural homogenization affecting subject populations: there was no reason for one, nor could it have been easily implemented. Ethnicity was not a significant factor in the organization of inter‐city Mesoamerican politics and political relations.Less

Pragmatism Against Morality: Ethnicity in the Aztec Empire

R. D. Grillo

Published in print: 1998-07-23

In Mesoamerica, conquest, predatory or segmentary expansion, and migration frequently brought together heterogeneous social, cultural, and linguistic populations under a single ruler. In the Aztec (Mexica) empire, ethnic distinctions were made, but little was made of them. Far from being a proselytizing, normatively mobilizing, moralistic polity, the Aztecs, like other patrimonial societies in Mesoamerica and elsewhere, were principally interested in extraction: ‘little more than a band of pirates’, Eric Wolf called them. Though Aztec rulers were interested in the formation of an identifiably Mexica ruling class, there was no policy of cultural homogenization affecting subject populations: there was no reason for one, nor could it have been easily implemented. Ethnicity was not a significant factor in the organization of inter‐city Mesoamerican politics and political relations.

The Aztec empire never surrendered. In early flower wars fought to demonstrate military prowess, surrenders were feasible among nobles but not in normal imperial wars. Individually, surrender is ...
More

The Aztec empire never surrendered. In early flower wars fought to demonstrate military prowess, surrenders were feasible among nobles but not in normal imperial wars. Individually, surrender is difficult to distinguish from capture, as captors had little incentive to accept surrender rather than take captives. Polities, however, did surrender, and could do so at any point, the extent of their resistance affecting their subsequent tribute obligations. But surrender was always a political decision. Yet if the leadership did not surrender after their army's defeat, their city would be sacked and the populace taken captives. Famously, however, Cortes claimed that the Aztecs surrendered to him on 13 August 1521, yet the subsequent sacking of Tenochtitlan strongly contradicts his self-serving assertion.Less

How Fighting Ended in the Aztec Empire and its Surrender to the Europeans

Ross Hassig

Published in print: 2012-07-26

The Aztec empire never surrendered. In early flower wars fought to demonstrate military prowess, surrenders were feasible among nobles but not in normal imperial wars. Individually, surrender is difficult to distinguish from capture, as captors had little incentive to accept surrender rather than take captives. Polities, however, did surrender, and could do so at any point, the extent of their resistance affecting their subsequent tribute obligations. But surrender was always a political decision. Yet if the leadership did not surrender after their army's defeat, their city would be sacked and the populace taken captives. Famously, however, Cortes claimed that the Aztecs surrendered to him on 13 August 1521, yet the subsequent sacking of Tenochtitlan strongly contradicts his self-serving assertion.

This chapter traces practices of identification in the early modern period, focusing on two ‘world systems’ outside of Europe that were drawn into a globalizing world system. The Ottoman Empire had a ...
More

This chapter traces practices of identification in the early modern period, focusing on two ‘world systems’ outside of Europe that were drawn into a globalizing world system. The Ottoman Empire had a long history of coexistence and economic exchange with Western Europe. Collective identities on both sides were relationally constituted across mutually recognized civilizational and religious boundaries. The Aztec Empire was a society unknown to Europeans before the late fifteenth century, and radically ‘Other’ to the Europeans at the time of conquest. Relational identities between Europe and the Aztecs came into play quickly post-conquest. European conquest had a devastating transformational impact on such societies, but the interaction that followed also called into question long-held European certainties about the unity of all humankind. This had far-reaching implications for Europe as it played a part in the development of the Renaissance and the momentous changes that were to follow.Less

Patterns of Identification on the Cusp of Globalization

Heather Rae

Published in print: 2017-01-19

This chapter traces practices of identification in the early modern period, focusing on two ‘world systems’ outside of Europe that were drawn into a globalizing world system. The Ottoman Empire had a long history of coexistence and economic exchange with Western Europe. Collective identities on both sides were relationally constituted across mutually recognized civilizational and religious boundaries. The Aztec Empire was a society unknown to Europeans before the late fifteenth century, and radically ‘Other’ to the Europeans at the time of conquest. Relational identities between Europe and the Aztecs came into play quickly post-conquest. European conquest had a devastating transformational impact on such societies, but the interaction that followed also called into question long-held European certainties about the unity of all humankind. This had far-reaching implications for Europe as it played a part in the development of the Renaissance and the momentous changes that were to follow.

This chapter studies ritual as constitutive and symptomatic of a political order and a mode of technics of politics. In such an approach, ritual rules and classifications are understood to fulfill ...
More

This chapter studies ritual as constitutive and symptomatic of a political order and a mode of technics of politics. In such an approach, ritual rules and classifications are understood to fulfill practical purposes in the production of order and legibility. The chapter considers the rituals of the Incas and Aztecs, which should be understood as technics of politics that worked to regulate the circulation of “capital” and goods, and the identification and sorting of individuals. It gives particular attention to the khipu, assemblages of cotton or wool strings used by the Incas to store data in the form of binary codes. The discussion of the khipu illustrates four related points about the centralization and retention of data. The first is that the number reigns in these systems of information retention. The second is that context is everything. The third is that these systems are most useful and needed in situations that are not legible, such as newly conquered territories. The fourth is that although artifacts characterize these systems they always require a particular class of individuals to operate them.Less

The Ritual

Josef Teboho Ansorge

Published in print: 2016-07-14

This chapter studies ritual as constitutive and symptomatic of a political order and a mode of technics of politics. In such an approach, ritual rules and classifications are understood to fulfill practical purposes in the production of order and legibility. The chapter considers the rituals of the Incas and Aztecs, which should be understood as technics of politics that worked to regulate the circulation of “capital” and goods, and the identification and sorting of individuals. It gives particular attention to the khipu, assemblages of cotton or wool strings used by the Incas to store data in the form of binary codes. The discussion of the khipu illustrates four related points about the centralization and retention of data. The first is that the number reigns in these systems of information retention. The second is that context is everything. The third is that these systems are most useful and needed in situations that are not legible, such as newly conquered territories. The fourth is that although artifacts characterize these systems they always require a particular class of individuals to operate them.